Bush authorises spying within US - Page 7

Originally posted by MaxParrishI will agree that the laws covering some of these areas are in need of re-examination and modification to cover data mining and the nature of stateless terrorism networks.

Having said that I see nothing wrong with treating Al Qaeda as one might treat any other espionge. Under appropriate conditions and rules, I see nothing wrong with using massive intercepts to filter out international communications with suspected or known foriegn terrorists. Nor do I see a problem with back tracing these calls to their sources, domestic and foriegn.

Intercepts such as Venona put dozens of communist cells and spy networks out of business in the late 40's and early 50's. Most of these were run by native born Americans who were committed to their idea of International Communism.

The only question is, how do we assure "reasonable" expectations of privacy for Americans through a system.

You can't and they won't.

That's it in a nutshell.

Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination

This doesn't add much to the debate - it's just the same we're-at-war-and-we-can-therefore-screw-you crap. Wouldn't it be a good New Year's present and if you chaps would just impeach this bloke so that the rest of us don't have to deal with this nonsense.

That none of us is above the law is a bedrock principle of democracy. To erode that bedrock is to risk even further injustice. To erode that bedrock is to subscribe, to a "divine right of kings" theory of governance, in which those who govern are absolved from adhering to the basic moral standards to which the governed are accountable.

We must never tolerate one law for the Ruler, and another for the Ruled. If we do, we break faith with our ancestors from Bunker Hill, Lexington and Concord to Flanders Field, Normandy, Iwo Jima, Panmunjon, Saigon and Desert Storm [...]

We are the heirs of a long tradition of parliamentary development, in which the rule of law gradually came to replace royal prerogative as the means for governing a society of free men and women.

We are the heirs of 1776, and of an epic moment in human affairs when the Founders of this Republic pledged their lives, fortunes and sacred honor - sacred honor - to the defense of the rule of law.

We are the heirs of a tragic civil war, which vindicated the rule of law over the appetites of some for owning others.

We are the heirs of the 20th century's great struggles against totalitarianism, in which the rule of law was defended at immense cost against the worst tyrannies in human history. The "rule of law" is no pious aspiration from a civics textbook. The rule of law is what stands between all of us and the arbitrary exercise of power by the state. The rule of law is the safeguard of our liberties. The rule of law is what allows us to live our freedom in ways that honor the freedom of others while strengthening the common good. The rule of law is like a three legged stool: one leg is an honest Judge, the second leg is an ethical bar and the third is an enforceable oath. All three are indispensable in a truly democratic society.

But he was only referring to a blowjob.

"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."